Skip to comments.Evangelicals: Change of Heart toward Catholics
Posted on 07/29/2008 4:39:52 PM PDT by annalex
click here to read article
Good points . . .
Though I don’t think the ship is all that tightly ran . . . on the whole.
Hmmn... but the Church of Rome, as founded by Leo IX in AD 1054, has erroneously departed from the Gospel of Christ. Specifically, the novelties of salvation by works and the sacrifice of the mass twist the Gospel almost beyond recognition.
What an absolutely HORRIFIC history.
What is it with this RC edifice obsession with
Only the LDS seem more obsessed with the dead/graduated!
I don't know what that is.
I'm talking about the Catholic Church.
You have completely misunderstood, and/or misrepresented, the evangelical position on the "literal" interpretation of Scripture. Evangelicals adhere to the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture: Scripture taken in its historical context, with attention paid specifically to the literally genre of any given passage: poetry is interpreted differently from historical narrative, etc. You have created a straw man argument that does not apply to what evangelicals actually believe. Further, dispensational theology believes you must distinguish in the way in which God rules in this world or the economy by which He mediates His rule in this world at different points in time.
... counters secularism because it shows a moral social model independent of it and indifferent to the secular world.
Except that there is nothing biblical about the monastic life...and there is no way that a "secular" society will see it as a model for themselves. It is viewed by the secular world as an aberration, and certainly of no value whatsoever to them.
Only reference to priests is in chapter 13, and the subject is prophets being treated as "high-priests".
I think you're assuming that it is addressed to priests but the content and context doesn't support that assumption.
So, it's an instruction as to how to baptize but it's not specifically directed to priests.
Looks like a difference to me. Then: any Christian could baptize. Now: Roman Catholic priest baptizes.
... counters secularism insofar as introduction of sexual promiscuity to the youth is an important secularist tactic.
And the secular world says that the celibate clergy have no understanding of the non-celibate world. Again, there is no way that the celibate lifestyle is a model for them...and they will disregard it.
Having said that, the Bible clearly speaks to this subject, and a "celibate" teacher is not required to speak to the biblical standard. Again, your argument that this is the exclusive property of the Roman Catholic just doesn't follow.
Every Protestant denomination that supports abortion "rights"
You have confused Protestant denominations with evangelicals. There is not a single evangelical denomination that I know of that is pro-abortion. And don't look now, but there are American Catholics who are pro-choice (read, pro-death of the unborn). And once again, the pro-life position is not the exclusive property of Catholicism. You have staked out exclusive territory that is just not yours alone.
I would disagree. On the whole the RCC is a very tightly run ship. Having a few weak persons in the US Army does not make it a loosely run military organization. The command structure is tight. The outputs are regular and according to standards. The same with the RCC. Organizationally, it is in every nation on the planet, and nearly in every county-sized unit. It has an administrative hierarchy that goes to the lowest level. It communicates extremely well up and down the line. It has a clear idea of the outputs it desires, and it is very successful at implementing those to standard.
I’m not talking about theology here, quix. I’ve addressed that in an earlier post.
When I was baptized after getting saved, I was baptized by my younger brother and a good friend of mine and they used the formula.
So in the Didache the instruction about baptism wasn't specifically given to priests, was it? It was given to all Christians.
The issue is “influence on the secular world,” and the assertion that the Roman Catholic Church is the only antidote, to the exclusion of the Protestant/Evangelical church. The uniqueness of John the Baptist cannot be taken as a model for the monastic life...and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
You are excused!
The subject would take a book. I don't have time for that at the moment, but here's one example of priestly duty "then" and "now":
Here's my original question as found in post #127:
Is the Roman Catholic priesthood the same today as it was from the founding of the church "from Acts onward"?
You cited the Didache as an example of a priestly duty "then" and "now", and I read it and made the assertion that there isn't contextual evidence that the Didache's intended audience is all Christians, not just priests.
Yes, we can know.
We can read the document and use our minds and intellect look at the context.
Among Christians, "apologetics" is about Christ, the Gospel, and God's Word.
Here, it's Rome, Rome, Rome.
I'm a non-denominational Christian and I find that genuinely funny.
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. “ - Jesus, John 17:17
In that case, I want you to understand that this has become a sore point for me (as you probably have ascertained). Your reply to me, giving the impression that "most of what they say is all lies" is what set me off, and for that I apologize.
I also want you to understand that it is the history that I am concerned with. I am "old school" in that I will happily take the word of the scholars closest to the events in question over those seeking to revise their work- It must be so, by the nature of the discipline, and the evidence must be overwhelmingly to the contrary to overturn their good works. With that in mind, I invite you to look at Plaisted's work. If you can get past the anti-Catholic tone to look at the numbers and the references he cites (which is why I posted it in the first place), and would care to offer an argument of substance, I would be happy to hear your reply.
I was going specifically by your comments in the post to which I responded; namely that you'd said your earlier observations had come from admittedly anti-Catholic sources and bards and troubadors! A rather rickety stool indeed.
This offers me some consternation, as Catholics seem to put such faith in oral tradition... The songs of the bards and troubadours are exactly that, and much can be learned of everyday life, history, and every sort of thing, even if they are a bit whimsical or irreverent at times. Especially when dealing with the Occish peoples and the Celts, where no other record exists. If one wishes to learn of them first hand there are few other sources.
As to the sources being anti-Catholic, one would be hard pressed to find anything in medieval Europe that would be a neutral source- either one is with Rome, or one is crushed.
My study was to consider ancient trade routes as established by the Phoenicians, supposing their good friends the Hebrews would have partnered with them quite a bit, and to look for evidences of Hebrew colonies along those routes. That evidence is there, and easy to establish. But then I thought one might suspect that the fruits of the Pentecost (why was every one in Jerusalem again? Remember speaking in [up to 12] tongues?) might just turn up along those same routes... And they do. In the Iberian Peninsula of Spain, at Gibraltar, the South of France, in Brittany, in the British Isles, in the Benelux region, and so on. The world was a whole lot bigger than we have been lead to believe, I'd guess.
It is odd, though, that all of these places are also the generators of supposed heresies against the RCC, isn't it?
At any rate, with the little that Rome has left us in the way of evidence, all that is left is the tales of troubadours and bards, the rest is buried in the ground, waiting to come back into the light.
As an aside, your moniker has always intrigued me... did you drop your waffle at the beach? :P
What an amazing and repulsive display. Luckily for the recipient (unlike most), he was already dead before the RCC authorities assailed him for his alleged offenses.
Nothing but crickets from our Catholic FRiends.
Funny how that works out.
I would still like an RCC answer explaining how 1200 (nearly) continuous years of crusades, inquisitions, genocides, religious persecutions, torture, rape, pillage, sword, and blood do not represent an errant Church.
I really would like an answer.
The answer, if one is provided, will go something like this: What you need to realize is that The Catholic Church is inerrant, in so far as it is inerrant. The Pope is infallible, but only in so far as he is infallible. You Proddies just don't understand because you are Proddies.
lol, I see the anti catholic Harpie crowd is here.
The other main source was attempts to merge Christianity with Greek philosophy. This is where the Gnostics come in, and some of the other more odd heresies.
But for the later Medieval heresies, these can't be the source.
Which, I guess, on second thought, is what it is....
I know that Pelagian was the source of a heresy, but could you give details of the Pelagian view of justification?
Before responsing, it would be helpful to know your understanding of that period in history. Please post references and links. Thank you.
Why am I not surprised.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
I see Judith Anne has called the mod in because what I said was antagonistic. I can’t see it but... That’s what they do.
Hell would be more likely to hold an Olympic snowball fight, first.
THEY CANNOT--EVEN TO THEMSELVES--EVEN TO THE PERSON IN THEIR MIRRORS--DARE TO RISK EVEN THE KERNAL of such an honest, true-to-history-and-reality logical answer to that question.
If they do, the house of cards is in shambles.
Have you ever seen one of those string and stick sculptures--all tensioned just right etc? Their house of cards is like that only chaotic vs orderly.
The rubber stretches from point A to point W. And from point C to point X. And from point K to point YY. and from point G to point QQ . . . a Gordian Knot would be a slipknot by comparison.
The mutually exclusive terminal level deal breaker BRAZEN CONTRADICTIONS within the edifice and it's endless reams of dogma and fantasized doctrines & !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of men and worse . . . are as obvious as warts on a toad . . . unless one is addicted there-to; obsessed there-with and worshiping there-at.
Some folks with sufficient fair-mindedness and openness to Holy Spirit to learn and see truth, yet . . . may well profit eternally from your great efforts. It increasingly looks like a number of rabid folks hereon may well not be included in that cluster.
Being born again means you can’t get away with the stuff you used to. The Holy Spirit is at work in your life to rid you of the garbage you bring into your Christian walk. When you begin to change, then people KNOW the Holy Spirit is in you. When you begin to love people without reservation, then people know the HS is within you. You cannot live the Christian life without Him working in and through the believer. All this takes time, to be sure, but there should be evidence of the HS in your life when you are born again.
All with the most polished expression of incredulity that anyone would consider such rubber logic to be the least bit amiss . . . along with terminal Olympic Class haughty indignation that there could possibly be the least micro-gram of a flaw in such assertions.
Maybe some need an ice dunking to be awakened and brought back to this reality.
But a cluster of Believers who are against
—fantasized unrelatives of Jesus
. . . heresies . . . doctrines and traditions of man and worse . . .
is certainly against the corrupt elements, lying elements,
rubber history elements
rubber Bible elements
rubber logic elements
rubber dictionary elements
political power-mongering bureaucracy elements
etc. of the RC edifice.
Of course . . . without all that . . . it wouldn’t be anything resembling the RC edifice we are all familiar with . . .
which must be where the terror comes from . . .
to imagine that with all the sacred cows gored . . . what would be left . . .
That would be frightful for those addicted to worshiping the sacred cows.
Doesn’t really matter—parsing words and historical facts is back to the rubber edifice.
The summary in that paragraph is sufficient for the point.
The BRAZENLY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS are inescapable.
Y’all simply refuse to deal with them.
I believe that I have previously addressed your claim that every violent death in Europe from the fall of Rome through the 18th Century is somehow attributable to the papacy:
“Evangelicals: Change of Heart toward Catholics”
You can’t expect everybody to want to unite against secularism and anti Christian sentiment for Christ. But most of those are not evangelicals. They think evangelicals are wrong as well. Everybody is wrong but them.
“You shall know them by thier fruits”
The Christians had been reading Romans 7 for 15 centuries prior to Luther without the need to invent self-serving doctrines that directly contradict it. Some gift.
It is true that every time anyone says anything about any evengelical position, an evangelical will be found who would say it is a misrepresentation. You just followed up with two posts to me that apply the same error of fundamentalist literalism to monasticism and celibacy (combined with apparent ignorance of the scripture passages concerning John the Baptist). Well, whatever the evangelical manner of scriptural interpretation is, your posts illustrate why it is inadequate and un-Catholic.
Masybe I was unclear in my 82 when I said "these are the things that are together uniquely Catholic, that are each a bastion against the forces of secularism". I did not say that each of these things alone is uniquely Catholic, but rather that they together, as a list, only apply to the Roman Catholic Church.